JUDGMENT : Johnson John, J. The appellant is the accused in S.C. No. 158 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-V Palakkad and he is challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offence under Section 324 IPC as per the impugned judgment dated 04.02.2014. 2. The prosecution case is that on 11.07.2010, at about 7 p.m., there occurred a quarrel between the accused and his wife in connection with a dispute in providing a way to the brothers of the accused and the accused attacked PW5 with a chopper and inflicted cut injuries on her left thigh, above the left ankle, on her back, near the left thumb and chin and he also attacked her with the chopper aiming her throat and the same was prevented by PW5 with her hand and thereby, she sustained injuries on her throat and hand and it is alleged that the accused committed the acts with the intention and knowledge to cause the death of his wife and he is thereby alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 324 and 308 IPC . 3. When the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge under Sections 324 and 308 IPC , PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P9 and MO1 were marked from the side of the prosecution and from the side of the defence, Exhibits D1 and D2 were marked. 4. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court found the accused not guilty of the offence under Section 308 IPC and guilty of the offence under Section 324 IPC . The accused was convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 324 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. 5. Heard Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Hasnamol N.S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. 5. Heard Sri. Nireesh Mathew, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Hasnamol N.S., the learned Public Prosecutor. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has no consistent case regarding the place of occurrence and that the trial court ought to have found that PWs 1 and 8 are interested witnesses having enmity towards the accused and in the absence of independent evidence regarding the occurrence, the accused/appellant is entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of the injured, PW5, is supported by the evidence of PWs 1 and 8 who are neighbours of the accused and victim and the minor variations in their evidence while narrating the incident cannot be taken seriously and that the evidence of PW5, injured, is supported by medical evidence and the evidence of PWs 1 and 8, neighbours who reached there at the time of occurrence. 8. According to PW5, on 11.07.2010, at about 7 p.m., while they were on the back side of their house, her husband, Chellan, informed her that he wanted to sell the house and property and when she objected the same, there occurred a quarrel and thereupon, her husband Chellan took out a chopper from the kitchen and inflicted cut injuries on her left leg, thigh and back. The accused also attacked her with the chopper aiming her neck and when she prevented the same with her hand, she sustained injuries on her left hand and cheek. According to PW5, she fell down with bleeding injuries near the lean-to and subsequently her brothers came there and took her to the hospital. PW5 identified the accused and MO1, chopper, before the court 9. In cross examination, PW5 stated that she was not in good terms with her husband and they were residing separately for the last 3 years. According to PW5, the accused was residing in his family house. The evidence of PW5 in cross examination shows that there are other cases between them in connection with the matrimonial dispute. The evidence of PW5 in cross examination shows that PW1, Gangadharan is residing near to her house; but, she denied the suggestion that she was having illicit relationship with Gangadharan. 10. The evidence of PW5 in cross examination shows that there are other cases between them in connection with the matrimonial dispute. The evidence of PW5 in cross examination shows that PW1, Gangadharan is residing near to her house; but, she denied the suggestion that she was having illicit relationship with Gangadharan. 10. In another part of the cross examination, PW5 admitted that the accused filed a complaint in Nenmara Police Station and the matter was settled between parties in the Police Station. Exhibit D2, copy of the petition register of Nenmara Police Station relating to petition No. 364 of 2010 dated 10.07.2010 shows that the accused has preferred a complaint against PW1, Gangadharan, alleging illicit relation between PWs 1 and 5 and the matter was discussed and settled in the Police Station with a warning to the opposite party not to create any future problems. 11. PW3 is the doctor who examined PW5 at Community Health Centre, Mattathur at 8.50 p.m., on 11.07.2010 and issued Exhibit P2, wound certificate. The evidence of PW3 and Exhibit P2 shows that PW5 sustained the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 13 x 8 x 2 cms over the left leg. 2. Lacerated wound 6 x 4 x 3 cms over the upper part of left thigh. 3. Lacerated wound 3 x 2 x 1 cm over the left hand over thenar muscles. 4. Lacerated wound 4 x 3 x 2 cms over the left shoulder blade. 5. Lacerated wound 2 x 1 cms on the right shoulder 12. In Exhibit P2, wound certificate, the alleged history is recorded as follows: 13. PW4 is the doctor who examined PW5 at Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. The evidence of PW4 and Exhibit P3, discharge certificate, shows that PW5 was admitted in Medical College Hospital, Thrissur on 12.07.2010 and discharged on 18.07.2010. 14. PW1, Gangadharan, deposed that he is residing in the house on the back side of the house of the accused and that there is only a distance of 15 metres between his house and the house of the accused. 14. PW1, Gangadharan, deposed that he is residing in the house on the back side of the house of the accused and that there is only a distance of 15 metres between his house and the house of the accused. PW1 deposed that the incident occurred at about 7 p.m. and at that time, the daughter of the accused reached their house and informed them that her father is chopping her mother and immediately he proceeded to the house of the accused along with his wife and when they reached there, the accused was attacking his wife with the chopper. According to PW1, he saw bleeding injuries on the leg of PW5 and when he asked the accused to drop the chopper, the accused approached him with the chopper threatening to kill him and thereafter, left the place after abandoning the chopper near the kitchen. PW1 also identified the accused and MO1, chopper, before the court. 15. PW8 is the wife of PW1 and according to PW8, when she reached the house of the accused along with her husband, PW5 was lying on the back side of her house and the accused was holding on the hair of PW5 and the accused was also holding a chopper in his hand. According to PW8, when her husband demanded the accused to release PW5, the accused dropped the chopper and ran away. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that it is stated in Exhibit P1, scene mahazar, that the place of occurrence is 1 ½ metre south from the back side of the house of the accused. But, PW5 has categorically stated in cross examination that the incident occurred inside the lean-to on the back side of her house and that the incident was not in the property on the back side of their house. In another part of the cross examination, PW5 stated that when the accused attacked her with the chopper, no other person was there and she further admitted the suggestion of the defence counsel that no other person has witnessed the occurrence. 17. But, it is pertinent to note that in another part of the cross examination, PW5 stated that Gangadharan is residing about 20-30 metres away from their house and that Gangadharan was among the persons who reached there. 17. But, it is pertinent to note that in another part of the cross examination, PW5 stated that Gangadharan is residing about 20-30 metres away from their house and that Gangadharan was among the persons who reached there. The evidence of PW5 in cross examination shows that it was Gangadharan and his wife who first reached there at the time of occurrence. 18. The learned Public Prosecutor invited my attention to Exhibit P1, scene mahazar, to point out that the presence of blood stains in the lean-to of the house of the accused used as kitchen is noted in Exhibit P1 mahazar prepared on 14.07.2010 and further, the evidence of PW8 would show that when she reached there, PW5 was lying on the back side of her house and the accused was holding her hair with one hand and he was also holding a chopper in the other hand. 19. The fact that the accused preferred a complaint against PW1, the husband of PW8, alleging illicit relationship between PW5 and PW1, cannot be accepted as a reason to reject the evidence of PW8, who is none other than the wife of PW1. There is no reason for PW8 to falsely depose against the accused and therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that PW8 is an interested witness cannot be accepted. The fact that the accused preferred a complaint in the Police Station alleging illicit relationship between PW5 and PW1 by itself cannot be taken as a ground to believe that there existed any such illicit relationship or enmity between the accused and PW1. 20. It is well settled that if the court before whom the witness gives evidence, had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable, it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the narration of the incident by the occurrence witnesses. 21. 21. In Balu Sudam Khalde and another v. State of Maharashtra [2023 Livelaw (SC) 279], the Honourable Supreme Court held that the following legal principles are required to be kept in mind, while appreciating the evidence of an injured witness: “(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. (f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.” 22. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Investigating Officer has not taken any steps for collecting scientific evidence from the place of occurrence, in spite of noting the presence of blood stains in the kitchen, as per Exhibit P1 scene mahazar. But, it is well settled that investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial and if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true, the court is free to act on it. 23. In State of Karnataka vs. K. Yarappa Reddy [ (1999) 8 SCC 715 ], it is held as follows: "It can be a guiding principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation. It is well- nigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. Otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. It is well- nigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. Otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The court must have predominance and pre- eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeit the investigating officer's suspicious role in the case...." 24. On a careful re appreciation of the entire evidence, I find that the evidence of PW5, injured eye witness, is supported by the evidence of PWs 1 and 8, who are neighbours of the victim and the accused and further, the evidence of PW5 regarding the occurrence is also supported by medical evidence and therefore, I find no reason to disagree with the finding of the trial court convicting the accused for the offence under Section 324 IPC . 25. The learned counsel for the appellant argued for leniency in the matter of sentence. But, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of the weapon and the nature of the injuries inflicted, I find that no case is made out by the appellant to interfere with the sentence imposed by the trial court. 26. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The bail bond executed by the accused/appellant shall stand cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith to undergo sentence, failing which the trial court is directed to execute the sentence without fail. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the jurisdictional court for compliance and further steps.